Prevalence and correlates of antisocial behaviors among three ethnic groups

Using data from the MECA Study, this report examines the prevalence of Conduct Disorder (CD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and various levels of antisocial behavior and their correlates among three ethnic groups: Hispanics, subdivided into Island Puerto Ricans and Mainland Hispanics; African Americans; and Mainland Non-Hispanic, Non-African Americans. Correlates considered include stressful life events, birth defects, low birth weight, learning difficulties, teen mothers, family environment, marital adjustment, social competence, parental monitoring, and family relationships. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of outcomes with individual correlates and of interaction terms with ethnicity. Differences between adjusted rates and observed rates of disorders and levels of antisocial behaviors are compared to estimate the extent to which each correlate explains the group differences in rates. Island Puerto Ricans had a lower prevalence of CD, ODD, and various levels of antisocial behavior than mainland Hispanics, African Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites. The lower prevalence appears to be associated with differences in the extent to which a number of these correlates are found on the island, the most salient being better family relations between the target children and their parents and siblings.     

Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct

Although the terms mentor and thesis advisor (or research supervisor) are often used interchangeably, the responsibilities associated with these roles are distinct, even when they overlap. Neither are role models necessarily mentors, though mentors are role models: good examples are necessary but not sufficient. Mentorship is both a personal and a professional relationship. It has the potential for raising a number of ethical concerns, including issues of accuracy and reliability of the information conveyed, access, stereotyping and tracking of advisees, and the abuse of power. Nevertheless, mentors can be critically important for professional success and are one of a number of elements that affect the responsible conduct of research. In addition, the community as a whole has a responsibility to mentor junior members. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a conference sponsored by the National Science Foundation on Mentoring and Research Values: Students as Vital Human Resources, Chicago, USA, March 1995.     

The effects of prohibiting gestures on children's lexical retrieval ability

Two alternative accounts have been proposed to explain the role of gestures in thinking and speaking. The Information Packaging Hypothesis (Kita, 2000) claims that gestures are important for the conceptual packaging of information before it is coded into a linguistic form for speech. The Lexical Retrieval Hypothesis (Rauscher, Krauss & Chen, 1996) sees gestures as functioning more at the level of speech production in helping the speaker to find the right words. The latter hypothesis has not been fully explored with children. In this study children were given a naming task under conditions that allowed and restricted gestures. Children named more words correctly and resolved more 'tip-of-the-tongue' states when allowed to gesture than when not, suggesting that gestures facilitate access to the lexicon in children and are important for speech production as well as conceptualization.     

The Survival Imperative

Science and Engineering Ethics - Humans are powerful and clever, and also more ignorant than they know. As a result, they too often fail to acknowledge or even recognize their limitations, and are...     

Potential for Bias in the Context of Neuroethics

Neuroscience research, like all science, is vulnerable to the influence of extraneous values in the practice of research, whether in research design or the selection, analysis and interpretation of data. This is particularly problematic for research into the biological mechanisms that underlie behavior, and especially the neurobiological underpinnings of moral development and ethical reasoning, decision-making and behavior, and the other elements of what is often called the neuroscience of ethics. The problem arises because neuroscientists, like most everyone, bring to their work assumptions, preconceptions and values and other sources of potentially inappropriate bias of which they may be unaware. It is important that the training of neuroscientists, and research practice itself, include open and in-depth discussion and examination of the assumptions that underlie research. Further, policy makers, journalists, and the general public, that is, the consumers of neuroscience research findings (and by extension, neurotechnologies) should be made aware of the limitations as well as the strengths of the science, the evolving nature of scientific understanding, and the often invisible values inherent in science.     

Christian Leadership and Religiosity Reexamined: The Evidence from College Student Leaders

This article assesses the impact of religiosity on Christian leadership orientations. The theoretical model is taken from the study of Shee, Ji, and Boyatt (2002), which presupposes that quest religiosity is inversely related to the structured, human resource, political, and symbolic leadership frames, while intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity are positively tied with them. The analysis is based on the 116 college student leaders in 12 Protestant colleges and universities. According to the data, the patterns of linkage between religious orientations and leadership frames lend partial support for the hypothesis. Intrinsic religiosity tends to foster structural and symbolic leadership, but quest religiosity promotes political leadership. The human resource leadership has turned out to be independent from religiosity, and extrinsic religiosity is found to have little to do with Christian leadership orientations.     

Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering

Global society is facing formidable current and future problems that threaten the prospects for justice and peace, sustainability, and the well-being of humanity both now and in the future. Many of these problems are related to science and technology and to how they function in the world. If the social responsibility of scientists and engineers implies a duty to safeguard or promote a peaceful, just and sustainable world society, then science and engineering education should empower students to fulfil this responsibility. The contributions to this special issue present European examples of teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering, and provide examples and discussion of how this teaching can be promoted, and of obstacles that are encountered. Speaking generally, education aimed at preparing future scientists and engineers for social responsibility is presently very limited and seemingly insufficient in view of the enormous ethical and social problems that are associated with current science and technology. Although many social, political and professional organisations have expressed the need for the provision of teaching for social responsibility, important and persistent barriers stand in the way of its sustained development. What is needed are both bottom-up teaching initiatives from individuals or groups of academic teachers, and top-down support to secure appropriate embedding in the university. Often the latter is lacking or inadequate. Educational policies at the national or international level, such as the Bologna agreements in Europe, can be an opportunity for introducing teaching for social responsibility. However, frequently no or only limited positive effect of such policies can be discerned. Existing accreditation and evaluation mechanisms do not guarantee appropriate attention to teaching for social responsibility, because, in their current form, they provide no guarantee that the curricula pay sufficient attention to teaching goals that are desirable for society as a whole.     

Editors’ Overview: Topics in the Responsible Management of Research Data

Responsible data management is a multifaceted topic involving standards within the research community regarding research design and the sharing of data as well as the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data. Transparency in the manipulation of images is increasingly important in order to avoid misrepresentation of research findings, and research oversight is also critical in helping to assure the integrity of the research process. Intellectual property issues both unite and divide academe and industry in their approaches to data management. Central to the realization and promulgation of responsible data management is clear and careful communication of standards and expectations within the research community to trainees as well as among colleagues. These topics are examined and explored in depth in a special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics on responsible data management.